 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
Transcript of Video Conference Between USCIB Members and European Union Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy
View a webcast of this event on PNLTV, the World Trade Broadcast Network
GEORGE CUNNINGHAM 01:00:04 Good afternoon, Commissioner Lamy. And a warm welcome to New York. I'm George Cunningham, and we welcome you from the European Commission delegation in New York, and also, the US Council for International business. Together, we are hoping to start the first in a series of discussions and debates on trade issues. 01:00:34 So, now, I'm moving on to Ambassador Niles, who's going to get the show under way. Thank you very much, and welcome again, Commissioner Lamy. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:00:45 Thanks very much, George. And welcome to you, Commissioner Lamy, thank you so much for joining us this morning. This is an opportunity, as was noted, for a frank exchange between the group of business representatives here in New York, all of whom, I think I can say, 01:01:08 are committed to a partnership between the United States and Europe. And I think I could also say are hoping for better times under new management in the US/European relationship.
01:01:22 We, I think, would also agree that the advent of Ambassador Zoellick, a close friend of the Commissioner's, in the United States as Special Trade Representative, gives us a reason to expect that the broader interests of the United States and Europe in this relationship will perhaps prevail 01:01:44 over a policy which tended to focus too much on smaller, though still important, trade disputes.
01:01:50 Let me introduce, if I may, Commissioner Lamy, the members of the panel this morning. First, to my right, at the far right, we have Mr. David Wright of PepsiCo; Mr. Peter Russell from J.P. Morgan Chase & Company; Mr. Ken Leeson from Cullen International; and Mr. Chris Hansen from The Boeing Company. 01:02:12 And now to my right starting at the far side, I have Mr. Rufus Yerxa from Monsanto; Mr. Nigel Thompson from Merck & Co.Corporation; Mr. Rob Mulligan from The Chubb Corporation; and Mr. Michael Hodin from Pfizer.
01:02:30 So, this is the group, Commissioner, that will be discussing with you this morning the relationship and perhaps what the business communities on both sides of the Atlantic can do to support you and Ambassador Zoellick in efforts to improve both the tone and the substance of this very important relationship. COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:02:51 I would start from the fact that if you consider the EU/US trade, ordinary economically, that we have every reason to build up a very strong partnership. As we are in business, most of you are in business, I used to be in business, we do this when we have 01:03:37 common strategic interests, and common problems to solve. We have common strategic interests, our economies are big, important world economies ... they, although the US is clearly more advanced in the technical type we both have 01:04:06 modern and competitive economies. We both need to expand abroad for the sake of our growth. And we both need to import where it is more efficient to do so elsewhere than in our domestic base. And, by the way, we are 01:04:27 the only two economies in the world who share these characteristics, and we work to gain professional ties. I think what I say fits. But we basically have the same sort of strategic fit.
01:04:47 In terms of problems we have to solve ... we again have the same characteristics as in the US. We have vibrant domestic political units. They both are big and very tough democracies. And we have to take a lot of care about what people in our countries think or be. Here again, when you think of it, we are the only two “ elephants” based in the world. And 01:05:36 by the way, when you look at trade, we both need a sufficiently broad domestic backbone for an open trade policy. Much of the domestic…(?) In other words, if ((Bob Zoellick) or myself, say, “let’s make a deal,” which will be seen as a concession either on my side or on his side, we will need political public support from our authorizing environment ...
01:09:32 ... as I call them, whether it's my member states or the open Parliament, or Congress which, as we all know, is heavily influenced by business in the United States. Our authorizing environments are not that favorable to either of us making deals in this direction. And I think the big question we have to address is how can we improve the stance that our respective authorizing environments can make.
01:10:02 I don't think it's a fatality, I think we should work on that. And my own agenda, and I will finish by this in order to get into questions and exchanges of views ... my own agenda is quite simple. And I think I have the necessary authority in terms of a negotiator to push it forward. And my hope is that my counterpart in the US will have the same sort of authority ... let's work jointly on the 01:10:37 multilateral scene. We both have a very strong multinational commitment. We both care about the existence of a disciplined multilateral trading system, we are the two elephants of this system ... let's work jointly in order to improve it. And the name of the game today is a new trade 01:11:01 round. There could have been other solutions for enhancing the ... the significance of the multilateral trade system than a new round ... it's not the case that there are other alternatives today, so the name of the game is a 01:11:16 new trade round. Let's work together on this.
01:11:19 On the bilateral relationship, let's build as much as we can of a positive agenda. Areas for positive cooperation, whether it's in regulatory cooperation, whether it's in addressing challenges of the future such as a biotech environment and so on ... are there ... we start from different cultural backgrounds, but we need to address this 01:11:52 jointly. And second, let's address these disputes which are still there ... The occasion of a new administration, as Tom just implied in his very short introduction, may be a good occasion for spring cleaning. Let's try that. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:12:30 Well, I don't think anyone would reject the idea of a good spring cleaning. I also think that ... I hope most of us would share your ... your perception of where we are and where we need to go. It seems to me also, though, that we need to take cognizance of the fact that the relationship between the United States and Europe has 01:12:54 gradually changed from one that was dominated by trade flows to one which is now dominated by mutual investment ... each in the other. And if we think in terms of that process, we see that rather than having opposed interests, we have mutual interests. Because to the extent Europe prospers, the United States prospers ... to the extent the United States prospers, so Europe prospers.
01:13:18 So, I think the effort should be undertaken both by the business communities and by the Commission and by the United States administration to explain to people here and in Europe this very powerful common interest. But, let's turn to questions. The first question will be posed by Mr. Hansen from the The Boeing Company. Chris? CHRIS HANSEN 01:13:40 Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you, once again, for joining us today. The question that I would like to ask you, really, has to do with not adding new tensions to the trade relationship between the US and the EU. And as you well know, there's been a long civil aircraft dispute going on between the US and the EU. 01:14:01 The question that I would like to ask you is with government loans from member states that are about to be distributed to a new Airbus project, would you consider, or would your Commission consider encouraging those member states to extend those loans where the 01:14:17 repayment terms are on commercial repayment terms? In accordance with the 1994 Subsidies Code? LAMY 01:14:25 I mean, I would not agree that we have a longstanding dispute between the US and EU on this. We have a potential dispute which stems from the fact that we are the only two significant operators in the long range aircraft industry, and by the way, not only the only significant, the only two producers in the world ... which creates a 01:15:01 situation which, as any sort of duopoly, we all know, isn't stable. The instability is between extremely good cooperation ... notably, price-wise ... which is forbidden by the spirit of competition, and which companies do not like very much. And on the other side, the other 01:15:28 extreme is extreme competition so that one would have the idea to oust the other from the system, which of course, companies would like a lot.
01:15:36 I think this is the sort of reference economic situation which we have. Now, we haven't had disputes for simple reason, which is that we decided to police our systems at a time when Boeing was, and still is, supported directly or indirectly by government money in the US, and at 01:16:11 a time when Airbus was, and is, directly or indirectly, supported by government money in the European Union.
01:16:17 We started in the '90s from the acknowledgement of that. We've built up rules which are enshrined into an agreement between the European Union and the US which we agreed in 1992. The subsidy code of the WTO, which came after 1992 which is '94 ... does not contradict this agreement, not in the least, because the subsidy 01:16:55 code is mostly about export subsidies. And not the least because, of course, the European Union would never sign an agreement in '94 in the WTO which would contradict the agreement which we had on Airbus and Boeing in '92 with the US.
01:17:11 So, we've policed this relationship. We've put rules into the system. And the question is now about the respective surveillance of these rules on the two sides. The US are entitled to check that the way we support Airbus through repayable loans fits into the constraints of this agreement. And we are entitled to check whether the support 01:17:50 which Boeing gets fits into this. I think it's a good system. And it's a system which will turn into disputes only if the US believe that what we do is not fit with what we agreed, or the other way around. To my knowledge, we're not there today. CHRIS HANSEN 01:18:12 I guess, I hope that we are ... we're able to go through this and really agree exactly on what the rules are, and the way that we proceed and that we can do this without any ... any future ... disputes. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:18:25 I think the ... the point might be that if ... if we can avoid yet another dispute ... in an area which is one of some sensitivity, that would be an enormous contribution to the overall good functioning of the relationship, and something that, I think, I would hope, that both the Commission and the United States government 01:18:51 would aspire to. LAMY 01:18:55 That's the way we see it on this side, Tom. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:18:57 Let me now turn to Michael HodIn from Pfizer Inc. MICHAEL HODIN 01:19:03 Thank you, Tom. Commissioner Lamy, thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet with you like this. We very much appreciate it. Commissioner Lamy, I'm sure you will not be surprised that our interest is in 01:19:23 intellectual property. There is not another company, another sector that is more committed to global trade, more committed to a new round, more committed to free and open markets with respect to trade and investment. And we worked 01:19:42 very hard with respect to the last round. We now have a TRIPS agreement and we would like to see, continued, as we all are working very hard for implementation of the TRIPS agreement.
01:19:54 And, I guess our concern is simply that in a new round ... that we make sure that we first continue to implement the TRIPS agreement and not get ourselves caught up in trying to cover new ground in an area where there's still a lot to be done to ensure open and free trade. Commissioner, I 01:20:16 wonder what your comment would be? I'm sure we can work this out together for the better of the United States, Europe and the rest of the world. COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:20:22 I mean, it's clearly, when you look at the inter-penetration between the US pharmaceutical industry and the EU pharmaceutical industry, it's clearly one of the cases where we have a joint stake in moving this thing forward. And I must say, I often speak with representatives of the US 01:20:52 pharmaceutical industry, or with representatives of the EU pharmaceutical industry ... and I've never been able to make a basic difference into what they were telling to me.
01:21:01 As far as intellectual property protection is concerned, there is no doubt that it is one of the strong points of our policy to protect intellectual property. We need ... research investment, most of this is private, if there is no ... if there is no intellectual property, there will be no investment in research. We need intellectual 01:21:35 property to cover this public good, which we all have, which is innovation. And this is a strong point of our policy. And this is why, by the way, we worked so efficiently, hand in hand, during the Uruguay Round ... to get where we are.
01:21:50 Now are all these agreements that we signed on the Uruguay Round ... are they without problem? And B) should we try and extend them here and there? A) I would be the happiest of men if these agreements were without any 01:22:12 problem. The fact is, that we are in politics, and that if we want to preserve the strong intellectual property protection that we got in the Uruguay Round ... we have to deal with the problem, which you know probably better than I do, with these ... this public opinion movement ... both in Europe, in the US and in the third world about access to medicines.
01:22:46 This is a question which we have identified a year ago at the very start of the Prodi Commission, and I am personally convinced, and I would not say that publicly ... that the balance which we struck during the Uruguay Round between the necessity of intellectual property on the one side, and a number of exceptions for reasons of public 01:23:11 health or public order... this balance is in danger of being disbalanced by this public opinion movement which basically makes the case that because of intellectual property, affordability for the third world to a number of medicines is impaired.
01:23:32 We all know it is not a major problem. We all know that availability and access to medicines has to do with many other questions, intellectual property . but, this is the way it is perceived. Hence, in order to be able to keep this balance, the necessity to address A) the problem of substance, which is how do we make more easily affordable medicines to third world countries, and notably, as concerns HIV/AIDS in 01:24:10 Africa where we all know it's destroying this continent ... so, how do we address this problem of substance on the one side? B) How do we deal with the connections of this with the legal system in WTO?
01:24:26 On the first question, I think we've done quite a lot of work, and I must say I'm very thankful to a number of pharmaceutical industries who started working in the direction ... not only because of us, but also because of international organizations moving in this direction. And I think it has diffused a lot of tension ... we've started this move ... of course, there remains to be seen 01:24:56 how we can get to really affordable prices, and who will fund ... and I agree with that, that this is a problem with public authorities.
01:25:01 Now, as far as the little connected legal problems we have, there may be a number of these which we'll have to address. For instance, the question of whether, in case a generic or a patent is waived or made compulsory in one country for whichever reason ... should and how could this be or not be recognized by a third country. This is a 01:25:32 problem which the present text of TRIPS does not address, and which we might need to address. So, that's as far as the present balance is concerned. I think we should ... our strategic 01:25:45 objective is to keep this balance. And in order to keep it, we have to advance in substance on this question of affordability.
01:25:56 Now, on the other part of what I understood to be your question, which is should we go and look in areas other than pure intellectual property ... for instance, geographic indications ... to this, my answer is yes. I know it's not a major US concern. It is a major European Union concern, for reasons which have to do with the value of brands and geographic origin of brands 01:26:25 indications. It is also something which is now pushed by a number of countries. And as we have to go in the direction, in a number of respects, I would prefer to go in the direction, as far as TRIPS is concerned ... on things like geographic indications. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:26:43 Mike, do you have a further point? MICHAEL HODIN 01:26:45 Well, simply to say thank you, and I believe that we couldn't agree more about this strategic balance ... your comments in support of the need for innovation are absolutely clear. And as we go forward, perhaps the greatest imperative is for us, in appropriate settings, privately, to be working together to ensure that we can fully explain to 01:27:18 you and work with the US government and other governments with respect to the revenue stream that is required to continue the innovative process. Because this would be in jeopardy if the intellectual property basis were threatened. So, I certainly take your comments with great, great hope, and I'm sure we'll be able to move 01:27:44 together. Because we all want to go ahead in a new round opening up markets for free trade and investment. Thank you very much. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:27:52 Thanks very much, Mike. I might just say, Commissioner, one of the things that comes to my mind on this discussion is the desirability of the Commission on the one side, and the United States government and other governments on the other explaining to their publics and more broadly what the issues are in this area. And 01:28:10 making clear that the price of pharmaceuticals is not the key issue in terms of dealing with the crisis that we see in some ... in some countries ... that it's a much, much bigger problem than that. And I think there's an important public policy role to be played here. Let 01:28:26 me now turn to Ken Liesen from Cullen International. Ken, question for the Commissioner? KEN LEESON 01:28:31 Yes, good morning, Commissioner Lamy. Picking up on some of your introductory comments, I think there's an area where there is a good deal of common interest between the United States and Europe, particularly given our advanced economies in the whole question of electronic commerce and telecommunications liberalization. 01:28:55 Which, as we are all aware, is on the agenda. We're trying to make some progress in the upcoming services negotiations. I'd like very much to understand and hear your views about how we might make progress in that area.
01:29:08 If I may just say, from our side, we see this as ... an approach that looks at two industries that are very different. And that is, the telecom industry which has a history of regulation and restriction which we are just now trying to open ... and the electronic commerce and services 01:29:30 which ride on top of that infrastructure, which is today, new and quite liberal and quite open. And we'd like to see progress made and make sure that we continue liberalization of the infrastructure and avoid new restrictions coming on the electronic commerce side. So, perhaps you could give us your views on this? COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:29:52 I think your extremely ... I mean, your presentation is right to the point that it has to do WTO-wise, and trade-wise ... with two different sectors. I mean, the telecoms which have their own sort of agreement, which dates from 1996 ... and where obviously, both of 01:30:26 our industries are more liberalized in our domestic regimes than the WTO sort of threshold requirements ... and it is our joint interest to push in WTO the telecoms provisions towards more liberalization so that others meet the sort of point where we are.
01:30:55 And okay, I think on this we are basically eye to eye between the US and European Union. And the way we have, I think, managed our domestic agenda is reasonably, satisfactory. And for instance, I think we both have an extremely important joint interest in ensuring that in Japan, for instance, the evolution, the regulation of telecommunications takes the same sort of route as it has taken both in the European Union and in the 01:31:36 United States. And I think there is still quite a lot of ground to cover. And if we can cover it jointly, and we all know how the Japanese decisions are taken, it's going to be for the best of both of our industries.
01:31:54 Under electronic services, I also basically agree with your point, which I understood was we start from a reasonably free environment, let's not add too many regulations on this. Fine with me. And I must say I'm still looking for reasons why electronic commerce, for instance, or any sort of e-distribution would have to do with a multilateral trade negotiation. 01:32:32 There may be adjacent questions like data privacy, or liability status, which may raise problems vis-a-vis an international trade regulation. But, I'm quite convinced that these are very peripheral topics.
01:32:55 In terms of bilateral, of course, it's a bit different. And leaving aside the multilateral scene, I think we have to ensure that the free flow of e-distribution . and so on ... is as easy as possible on both sides of the Atlantic. And on this, we have to meet and solve problems which have to do with, for instance, our different views on how data privacy regulation should be addressed. 01:33:27 And I think we've ... we've got last year to an agreement which still is there, although obviously open to some shaky comments on the US side. And we also have to address, for instance, the question of taxation in a way that doesn't make things more difficult than they are 01:33:47 today. That's the basic stance that we have.
01:33:49 So, in a nutshell, WTO-wise, I think we should work for other countries to join the sort of liberalization point that we've got. Between ourselves we should work so that we do not create unnecessary obstacles to this free flow of e-everything above the Atlantic. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:34:12 A very ... a very congenial position for all of us here interested in both telecom liberalization and the unfettered flow of e-commerce. And I think it's an area where the United States and the European Union have every opportunity to work together, and also work in third areas, and with 01:34:31 other countries to expand this area of common agreement. I think also our experience in this area underlines the desirability, if not the necessity, of trying to work things out in advance before either of us takes regulatory measures. And I would say that in the area of privacy we would have been a lot better off if 01:34:54 we could have somehow sat down and worked things out bilaterally before either one of us took measures which had an impact on the other. But, I won't pursue that particular discussion. Let me turn now to Mr. Rob Mulligan of the Chubb Corporation. Rob? ROB MULLIGAN 01:35:09 Thank you, Tom. Well, actually, Commissioner, my question was going to be along the same lines as what Tom was just mentioning in terms of regulatory issues. About three weeks ago, my chairman, Dean O'Hare, who I might mention, is also the new chairman of the U.S. Council for International Business, gave a speech in Brussels about the importance of resolving EU/US tensions 01:35:30 so that we can focus on building a consensus for the WTO Round. In that speech, he noted that increasing number of our trade disputes bilaterally and internationally are related to regulatory provisions that are impacting trade. And as a result of our feelings on this, The Chubb has been 01:35:48 actively supporting efforts to include in the WTO negotiations regulatory disciplines ... especially in highly regulated sectors like insurance. So, what I guess what I was hoping was to get your views on how we could more effectively deal with these regulatory problems to avoid the trade issues on 01:36:08 the bilateral level, but also, how can we go about including disciplines within the WTO that ensure regulatory provisions are not basically being substitutes for protectionism? COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:36:19 Well, on this ... very frankly, I would be a bit more cold footed than Mr. O'Hare ... in making it a point for us to address domestic regulation issues through a WTO negotiation. I think there is a risk if we go in the direction that we will alienate a part of our public support that cares a lot about health, public services, 01:37:15 education, public utilities, and so on. And that we've got to be very careful that in pushing this item explicitly, i.e., under the heading that a WTO services negotiation needs to address domestic regulation issues ... we run this risk.
01:37:40 This being said I agree that the basic point which you've made, that is that trade relationship now has a lot to do with regulations, not the least because trade and services are increased, is increasing, and that in most countries, services are at least somehow, at least on average, more 01:38:06 regulated than goods ... we have this necessity. But, I think we should and can deal with this necessity with normal WTO practices. That is, to ensure that the way we regulate our services make it national treatment compatible when we have taken commitments, make it non-discriminatory, make it transparent, and make it stable.
01:38:36 So, I mean, if the question is should we say that the domestic regulation glass of WTO is half full or half empty ... my strong preference would be to say that it is half empty ... for presentation and political reasons. This being said, we have to ensure through WTO disciplines ... that the capacity of member states of the WTO ... to address these questions which they have the sovereign 01:39:12 right to do according to WTO provisions ... do not lead to de facto discrimination. On a bilateral basis, it may be different. Bilateral trade relationships are a good occasion for WTO agreements ... and notably, in terms of mutual recognitions of services regulations ... I think 01:39:34 there is a lot of prospect in this direction including between the US and EU. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:39:40 That's very very encouraging, Commissioner. And I think you'll recall from our discussion of some of these issues in Cincinnati last November at the TABD that, I think on both sides of the Atlantic, the business community is hoping that we'll be able to move toward better cooperation in this area. Recognizing, as you say, the 01:40:02 enormous domestic political sensitivity, but also recognizing that it's awfully hard these days to draw a very fine distinction between the domestic and the international in a globalizing economy. Or actually a globalized economy. Let me now turn to Peter Russell from J.P. Morgan Chase. Peter? PETER RUSSELL 01:40:21 Welcome again, Commissioner Lamy. I also want to look ahead to November, and maybe welcome you again to the New York Marathon. And I know you've run several times before, and we hope that the Doha schedule doesn't interfere too much with your other marathon.
01:40:44 I wanted to follow up a little bit the domestic regulation point and focus on transparency. As you know, the US initial paper on financial services talks a lot about the transparency and I also see this raised substantially in the Canadian paper. Less so in the EU paper from December this past year. I emphasize transparency ... you may have seen a paper done by the Securities 01:41:17 Industry Association here that's been shared with some of your colleagues in Brussels ... focusing on principles of transparency for the financial sector.
01:41:25 And it's really to follow up on your point about how to move this kind of issue, being sensitive to the concerns to the domestic constituencies. And we think if you look at the financial sector, where there have been some substantial market access and national treatment gains from the last ... the '97 agreement ... but, we really need some further steps on the operation of domestic regulation in this sector.
01:41:57 So, I think my question would be, do you see some possibility of moving ahead? And this is the case with transparency where we have been as some other sectors within the financial services, pressing this directly with regulators in a number of other countries ... using IOSCO(?), the securities organization, using fora like APEC and OECD(?) ... and we're really trying to build a 01:42:24 base of support from the regulators up. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:42:29 I'm fine with this concept of transparency as long as it is not a code word for domestic regulation. Here again, and we've seen that in the previous exchange ... we have a domestic sensitivity in letting WTO stepp into domestic regulation areas. Transparency may be this ... or it may be something else. As long as it is 01:43:18 something else, fine with this. And I strongly believe that the discipline of transparency in terms of domestic regulations, whichever the sector is, but of course, I mean, the financial services is an extremely good example ... is of the essence in terms of 01:43:45 making it open, transparent, nationally transparent, and non-discriminatory.
01:43:49 And we all know, and it is not the case in the US or in the EU ... although, the banking regulation in the US sometimes raises concerns on our side on the way it can be changed in a way or another, and we've had a recent example with the equity requirements which (Inaudible) regulators are working on in this respect. But, I mean, I don't 01:44:16 think the problem is between the EU and the US. What we need is other countries to apply more strictly this problem of transparency.
01:44:27 So, if a transparency requirement is horizontal enough ... not to be turned or presented into a specific regulation ... domestic regulation constraint ... fine with that. If it's then a sort of cover concept to move on to the terrain of domestic relations, which we sometimes believe might be the idea of the authors, then we will have problems.
01:45:02 As far as marathons are concerned, you're right, and I'm also very concerned about the relationship between the Qatar meeting and the ... and the New York Marathon. And I've taken as a precaution, which is a sense of my, optimism on the possibility to lounge around Qatar, to run once more the Paris Marathon the day before 01:45:31 yesterday. So, that at least if I have no round in Qatar, I will have had one marathon in the year. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:45:43 (Laughs) We admire you for that if not lots of other things as well. Let me now turn to Mr. Nigel Thompson of Merck & Co. Nigel? NIGEL THOMPSON 01:45:55 Thank you. Commissioner Lamy, I've got a general question and then perhaps a more specific question. I think all of us are involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We're encouraged over the last few months that real progress seems to be being made. So, my general question to you is there's been a lot of promises of massive funding 01:46:21 ... I think there's a lot of agreement that massive funding is needed ...
NIGEL THOMPSON 01:46:21 ... I think there's a lot of agreement that massive funding is needed. I guess my question then to you is what needs to be done to access the funding so that medicines can get to the patients in the developing countries? And then more specifically, a question would be if there is going to be large funds available, I think there is a 01:46:41 concern as to how these funds would operate, how they would operate to make sure that the medicines get optimally to the patient, that the stakeholders, the payors, if you like, whoever they are, are getting value for money ... and that the pharmaceutical companies remain fully engaged? COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:46:59 On this I mean, I basically share your view that there has been a lot of progress both in awareness of the problem, and in identification of solutions which have to combine funding ... first, prevention, of course ... then funding, then distribution capabilities, and then 01:47:33 price availability. And I agree with you that given the sort of general commitment which the pharmaceutical industry has taken in the direction of tier pricing ... uh, it's now up to public authorities worldwide to come up with financing means.
01:47:56 Now, there the question gets tricky. Not because of the question of should enough funds be available. I think this is a secondary question in terms of the problems we have to address in order to move on the ground. The big problem, and you've just mentioned it, is how can you ensure that if money is put on the table by public authority at some entry of the plumbing system, 01:48:36 how do we ensure that it will translate into effective delivery of medicines to the population's concerns? And this question, which is a very complex one, has to do with the general inability of international public organization to spend 01:48:56 money rationally ... it also has to do with the fact that distribution is of the essence.
01:49:03 And I must say, I personally have always been convinced that we should let the pharmaceutical industry handle the distribution question as much as possible A) because it is in their own interests that the distribution system is in secure hands for competition reasons and ... I mean, counterfeits 01:49:26 and so on ... and B), because I think it's the best way to be sure that at the end of the day, it (Inaudible) the people. So, I think we still have to work on that. And we still have to work on that in a sort of joint approach which is pharmaceutical industry, public authorities ... public authorities being national governments, regional 01:49:47 organizations like the European Union, or international organizations such as UN/AIDS, WHO and so on.
01:50:22 There's one remaining question which we have to tackle, as you probably know, even if we go in the direction of tier pricing, with more massive funding ... which is the question related to parallel imports which we are working on extremely hard, and notably in this seminar which will be cosponsored by a number of international (Inaudible) in Norway at the end of this month ... 01:50:52 it's not ... it's not a small issue of agreeing between ourselves how can we deal on a normal regulatory ground ... on this question of parallel imports.
02:51:09 So, I think we still have a few equestions (Inaudible) of this kind, but we should take them as pragmatically as possible and work in not(?) with, if you may forgive me, politicians which will err numbers sort of to be nice, but with people, know the extreme difficulties of if I agree to put $100 million on the 01:51:17 table, how am I going to ensure that at end of the day it's going to reach the people who ... can not reach. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:51:38 Thank you very much, Commissioner, for that very useful answer. Certainly, we would be very concerned in finding a workable solution to the problem of parallel trade, parallel imports ... certainly not wanting to see pharmaceutical products made available to people in developing countries showing up in markets, for example, in 01:52:04 Western Europe and the United States, which ... might be a very undesirable consequence if this problem isn't properly addressed. Let me now turn to David Wright of PepsiCo for a question. David? DAVID WRIGHT 01:52:12 Good afternoon, Commissioner. I see our time is running short, so I'll come right to the point. Your earlier reference to authorizing authorities, I don't think was lost on any of us in the context of the upcoming trade debate. Many of us directly and through the US Council for International Business have placed major priority this year on 01:52:34 encouraging the Congress to grant President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick the flexibility they need to sit down at the table with you and come to a sound and progressive agreement in the trade and commercial front.
01:52:47 Many of us, in fact most of us, also belong to European based business and industry groups which have a point of view and which have been active on the trade policy front. But, at the same time, we worry that as individual businesses and perhaps as an association, that we still may not be doing enough. So, the question that I have is 01:53:13 ... is there an appropriate and constructive role beyond the European base affiliations and business memberships that we have ... that we as companies can play, that the US Council for International Business can play to help further the debate from the European side as well? COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:53:29 Well, thanks for this question which is an extremely important question for us. And I think you've put your finger on what we see as the major decision maker in this area, which is Congress. I think the rest of the world is not conscious enough that in the US system, the authorizing party on trade is Congress. And that hence, interaction with Congress, in many respects, is more important than interaction with the administration.
01:54:44 Of course, if you have a good leading administration, then, I mean, a number of things may be easier with Congress than votes, but at the end of the day, this is the crucial point. And to tell you, I mean, frankly, and in the (Inaudible) of this conversation, I must say that I'm worried about this. I can see the number of litigation 01:55:18 cases where the US have to change their legislation in the coming month, at least. And it's increasing every day ... copyright ... 1916 anti-dumping law ... FSC ... and others ... and the number ... I mean, this increasing number is, to me, a sign that we will really need Congress to do it ... to address these questions ... sort of up front.
01:55:47 We all know this ... that this adjustment is a painful political process. We know this on this side of the Atlantic, and I think I've already taken some flack for it from efforts I've done on our side on cases which we had to comply with.
01:56:37 And my direct answer to your question is please, let us help everybody in Congress to understand what all this is about. And if the 1916 anti-dumping legislation, if the copyright legislation, if the FSC legislation has to be changed, let's not put it as a problem where US sovereignty and (Inaudible) has to cave in to external pressure, whether it's to Europe, Japan, WTO ... I mean, things which (Inaudible) we don't like ... let's make it positive in terms of adjusting US rules to 01:57:24 a new world in which we have to live together. AMBASSADOR NILES 01:57:29 Well, that's a very good message, Commissioner. And we’ll certainly be taking that as best we can to the Congress. And as you know there's concern that this needs to go in both directions in terms of implementing decisions of panels. And I think we need to be cognizant of our obligations. 01:57:52 And that's very much on our minds here. Let me now turn to Rufus Yerxa of the Monsanto Company. Rufus? RUFUS YERXA 01:58:01 Good afternoon, Commissioner. I wanted to follow up on Mr. Wright's question. I was struck by something you said at the very outset about the difficulty that both you and Ambassador Zoellick have in making any overtures towards one another to show good will and build some confidence in the process of trade liberalization because of your very difficult domestic political 01:58:36 problems that each of you have. And in that context, it raises the question of how do you build some positive momentum to get support ... political support both in Europe and the US ... for a new round?
01:58:48 My sense at this time is that political support doesn't exist much on either side of the Atlantic. I've just spent the last five years living in Brussels, and now here in Washington I see the difficulty. I guess my question is, what kinds of ideas can both of you explore to begin to show a little bit of movement on both sides on some critical issues ... that will perhaps begin to create that momentum?
01:59:21 And along those lines, I think it's worth pointing out, as you said, trade negotiation authority is very important, but after all in the Uruguay round, the Congress didn't grant that authority until 1988, two years into the negotiations when they saw the momentum beginning to build. So, part of my question is, could that same paradigm apply in these circumstances ... two years or a year of 01:59:52 working to show some positive momentum that then creates the political support? COMMISSIONER LAMY 01:59:56 The answer that Rufus, and you know the trade scene as well as I do, it ... I mean, you're right in saying that we've never ... not only for the Uruguay Round, but never in the history before have we started negotiating a round with existing fast track. It always came either during the negotiation, or at the end of the negotiation. The difference this time is that this 02:00:28 new administration has made trade promotion authority, as they have nicely rebaptized fast track, a priority ... which is raising the stakes.
02:00:45 And the rest of the world is now basically waiting for the US administration to benefit from this trade promotion authority to move forward and agree on the agenda of the round. So, you legally and historically are correct in your assumption. Politically, the situation which has been created is a situation where now both in Europe and in the 02:01:17 rest of the world, people will be waiting for trade promotion authority to come. And if it does not come, this will have consequences both on the bilateral agreements which the US has to negotiate here and there ... not the least on the FTAA ... and on the global round.
02:01:35 Which, by the way, and I'm addressing the first part of your question, will not discourage me from working hard with the US on the agenda of the round. I think there is now reasonable understanding in developing countries that their lives will be ... their life will be better with a round than without a round. And that time has come for the US and EU to address these questions.
02:02:16 This is not to say that the round is the only multilateral positive agenda we may have in common. China will join the WTO. How do we handle this jointly so that China makes a smooth entry into WTO? Russia wants to enter WTO. How do we jointly make it clear to the Russians that joining WTO is not only about lending credibility, it's also about paying the price for that.
02:02:47 And on major issues of this kind, we not only have the multilateral round to launch, we also have to run the system. On the bilateral side, I already mentioned, I think in regularly ... regulatory corporation, or in some mutual recognition agreements and all the sort of agenda which TABD, for instance, is running ... there is a prospect for a good list of positives. We simply 02:03:17 have to work hard on these positives. And in order to work hard on these positives, it would be good if someone other than myself could interact with the numbers two, three, four, five in USTR and you all know, on your side, that we're still waiting for confirmations ... and that we're getting a bit impatient that they're going to come quickly. AMBASSADOR NILES 02:03:43 Well ... (Laughs) I'm afraid, as you know, Commissioner, that the political process here follows its own schedule, and I'm sure nobody is more frustrated than Ambassador Zoellick in the fact that it hasn't gone as quickly as one might hope. But, I think we can anticipate that before too long, you and your colleagues in the Commission will have a full team of people from 02:04:15 USTR with whom to engage on all of these issues.
02:04:18 Let me say that the one message I think that I take away from this discussion is that there is a broad area of convergence between our positions, and an even broader area of convergence in terms of our interests. And somehow, the business communities on both sides of the Atlantic and the governments need to explain better to this broad public in Europe and in the United States, and in a sense, authorizes governments and commissions 02:04:48 to negotiate, exactly what our shared interest is. And that we are a part of a very interdependent economic community where interests are ... are very much intertwined. And to the extent, as I said earlier, you do well, we do 02:05:08 well, and vice-versa. And I don't think that particular message has gotten out quite as clearly as it might. And hope that you and Ambassador Zoellick can spearhead an effort to get that before our publics.
02:05:17 Looking ahead I can't remember whether the New York Marathon precedes or follows the Qatar ministerial. but, I hope that perhaps you and Ambassador Zoellick can run the marathon together both here in New York, successfully, and in Qatar. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER LAMY 02:05:43 Tom, New York Marathon is on November the third ... and Qatar starts on November the ninth. So, I mean, given our advanced age, and I acknowledge I'm slightly in advance of Bob in this respect ... we anyhow, need a few days to recover after a marathon ... so it probably 02:06:02 wouldn't be very wise. But, to ... just to add on your concluding remarks, Tom, in the course of the conversation, I carefully noted the sort of length which you've ... intelligently, as usual, done between the questions and it has to do with mutual interest, it has to do with early warning, 02:06:33 and it has to do with a lot of explanation. And I basically think that the more time goes, the more trade negotiators of our kind have to spend time on explanation, pedagogy, and interaction with public opinion. I don't know whether this is good news or bad news. It certainly makes life 02:07:00 interesting. But, I think it also makes this all the more important that we interact with business people whose natural problem ... opportunity and gain in interacting permanently with consumers, shareholders, or the people of the corporation is ... it is such an in-built thing in business now ... and I think there is no reason 02:07:29 why it shouldn't be the case in trade. And I hope that opportunities like the one we've had today, thanks to the initiative of George Cunningham and with your support, all of you, and notably, Tom ... will help us in the direction. And I'm sure that we can do more of that. And then spread it to domestic constituencies which, I believe, as 02:07:54 you rightly said, Tom, we need to mobilize. AMBASSADOR NILES 02:07:57 Big agenda ahead, but let's be optimistic. We need a success somewhere out there. All the best to you, Pascal. COMMISSIONER LAMY 02:08:06 Okay. All the best. Bye to all of you. And thanks for spending this time with us. MAN 02:08:12 Thank you. MAN 02:08:13 Thank you. MAN 02:08:14 Thank you. (END OF TAPE)
|
|||||||||
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2013
|
PRIVACY
POLICY STATEMENT
|
CONTACT US
|
|||||||||
